Twenty20 cricket – 6 tactics for winning

Australian batsman Andrew Symonds during play - AAP Image/Tony McDonough
Is Twenty20 cricket nothing much more than a slogathon, a sort of cricketing version of a bar room brawl? Or is it a cricketing version of speed chess?

When Michael Clarke was appointed the Australian captain (temporary?) for the Twenty20 match against New Zealand at Perth, Ricky Ponting applauded the choice on the grounds that Clarke was an ‘instinctive’ cricketer whose instincts are generally correct. The implication in this (and I trust I am not drawing too long a bow) is that the Twenty20 game is so fast that decisions must be ‘instinctive’ than carefully worked out along tactical lines.

Michael Slater endorsed this approach to the game when he introduced the game on Channel 9 by describing Twenty20 cricket as ‘rock n roll cricket.’

But when he discussed with Adam Gilchrist what instructions he’d been given, Gilchrist said that he was told to take as many singles as possible. This suggested to me that the Australian coaching staff has worked out a form of tactical approach to the game. Which in turn suggests that the speed chess analogy is probably the correct one.

The Twenty20 game involves the batting side having 20 overs to score a total. Bowlers are only allowed four overs each which means that five bowlers at a minimum must be used. There are restricted field placings for the first six overs. But within this restriction there is no requirement for any fielders to to be placed in a catching position.

Now for some tentative thoughts, very tentative it must be emphasised, towards an understanding of a tactical approach to Twenty20 cricket.

1. The approach of the batting side should be to score 9 runs an over. This would provide a total of about 180 runs which would generally be defendable.

2. Bill O’Reilly claimed that the 50 over one-day format was biased towards batting. He argued that a team of 11 batsmen should be selected, with the batsmen having instructions to hit everything all the time. The 10 overs allocated to each bowler though somewhat scuttled the theory. A great bowler, or a good bowler having a great day, has sufficient balls (60) to take up to five wickets. But in the Twenty20 game this is not possible. Bowlers have only 24 balls each to bowl whereas a batsman may have up to 60 balls to face. It is the Twenty20 game, therefore, that is the loaded towards the batting side.

3. Fast bowlers and spinners are more effective in the Twenty20 game than medium-pacers. As the Australian fast attack demonstrated at Perth, the fact that each bowler had only 24 balls to deliver allowed the quickies to let fly right from the beginning. And the NZ spinners were more effective than the side’s medium pace bowlers because they took wickets and were able to place fields that covered the big outfield at Perth more effectively than the medium pacers could.

4. With the relative innocuousness of the medium pacers it seems that it might be better to stack a side with batsmen, allowing for only three front line bowlers say. It is hard to dismiss a side, 10 wickets required in only 120 balls, so batting sides can afford to keep hitting relentlessly. Bowling sides should rely on the three front line bowlers to keep the batsmen honest. Captains should perhaps experiment with most of the side having a bowl, working on the theory that mediocre bowling is about as ‘useful’ as ordinary medium pace stuff.

4. On field placing, I’d place my fielders inside the circle, or on the circle line itself. This would mean that the only close catcher, apart from the bowler, is the wicket-keeper. Having the inner ring fieldsmen on the circle should mean fewer fours and probably fewer singles. The thought here is that any ball that is restricted to a scoring shot of one run is a victory to the bowling side, and any scoring shot above two is a victory to the batting side.

5. To bat or to field if the toss is won? Always bat, in my view. The batting side has the opportunity of setting a target. Conversely, the bowling side confronting a side batting first does not know how valid that target will be. This poses questions about which bowlers to use towards the end of an innings. The side fielding second has no such doubts. It knows the target. It knows how the opposition is progressing towards the target. It can, therefore, use its bowling attack in the most effective way possible in preventing the target being reached.

6. All the batsmen should be capable of hitting sixes. I don’t know what the statistics are but I’d be surprised if the side that hit the most sixes didn’t win most of the Twenty20 matches. And the biggest hitters should be relatively high in the batting order. NZ, for instance, bats Jacob Oram too low.

Twenty20 cricket is a newish form of the game. It will be fascinating to see how tactics specifically applicable to the form evolve. So far, I believe, not a great deal of thought has gone into developing specific tactics.

Let’s start this interesting process here.

Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.

Like this content? Buzz it up!

Recently popular

Free Email updates:

Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...

Top read spiro

My piece of advice would be to pick 8 genuine batsman, leaving a three-man pace attack. Yes you will only get 12 overs out of them but i believe thats all you need. The change of pace and veritety is the best to take wickets and even part time bowlers would appear hard to hit. Michael Clarke can bowl his orthodox and maintain a steady line and length. Thats four bowlers, and people like a symo to role over a handful of his offies and mediums (i know medium pace is not great in twenty20 but he can use his change of pace and spin to his advantage). There we go 20 overs are covered with the likes of Watto and Noffke also avaliable for a throw down and a big hit with the bat.

Andrew McCormack said | December 17th 2007 @ 1:17pm | Report comment

interesting tactics and they all make perfect sense,

On point #6 I agree about the importance of six hitters in a Twenty20 team however the ability to fluently knock the ball into the right places and take ones should not be looked over. If you look at the amount of singles scored by teams in one-day games- generally the team with the most amount wins. Singles are the things that keeps an innings ticking over, boundaries alone aren’t the answer. Obviously hitting every ball to the rope or over it isn’t possible, the runs that come in between the boundaries I would say are just as important. Hence why the Aussies were looking for plenty of ones early doors to get their innings underway.

greg said | December 17th 2007 @ 5:17pm | Report comment

Great article Spiro
I think you need at least three, probably four frontline bowlers because as Reg said, you have to rely on your top order to get the job done. I don’t think there is any need for a designated batter at seven or eight because of the length of the game, if you get down to that position and still need to rely on a full-time batter then you are probably going to lose anyway due to the flow of runs being lost early on by losing wickets. As we briefly saw in Perth, part-time bowlers like Symmo are sparodic at best when it comes to Twenty20 form and should only be used very sparingly. The four full-time bowlers will get the job done with one all-rounder (maybe a Hogg-type) picking up the remaining overs. Selecting guys like Watson, Johnson and Lee as your front line pace attack will still give you waggle at the tail-end.

Greg Russell said | December 20th 2007 @ 10:48am | Report comment

Spiro, I agree particularly with the point about being able to hit sixes. This calls into question the naming of M Clarke as Australian captain, as of all current Australian batsmen, he has the least capacity to clear the boundary. Indeed, just look at his dismissal in Perth: attempting to hit a 6 off Vettori, he was caught at long-on. Those who have followed his one-day career will have seen him dismissed many other times in this exact some way. Given this, one has to wonder whether Clarke should even be in Australia’s T20I side, let alone be captain of it. (And don’t get me wrong, I think Clarke is a fabulously entertaining player with singular talent.)

Aaron Doherty said | June 20th 2008 @ 10:43am | Report comment

Great Article!
Like in all forms of the cricket runs on the board is the utmost importance. Singles are probably the most important thing.
If a team can hit 2 boundaries at least in an over and four singles, thats at least 12 runs and done consistently should have you near the 180/200 mark.
Having your symonds, Oram, Glichrist like players in your lineup are important but balance with you punchy single getters shouldn’t be overlooked, because as proved by the run drought at the end of the IPL there will be periods where the bowlers get it right and boundries become hard and hitting those singles are important. Because with the bowlers only having a short time to bowl it won’t be long until you can face someone you can get a hold off and catch up the runs with a big over or so.
Pace seems to be the way to go with our bowling, evidenced by our perth 20-20, with your part timers coming in with a change of pace.
Victorias win over tasmania (i think) where hodge bowled himself and hussey to really slow the tigers down and then got on top of them and won the final is evidence that your slower bowlers can be match winners too.

John - Rarotonga said | November 8th 2008 @ 9:51am | Report comment

excellent article but shouldn’t it be 7 tactics?

Wambi_Bretto said | January 24th 2009 @ 10:15pm | Report comment

Spiro…… Really mate, stick to rugby – Your off the mark If I was to apply your idea to rugby, then all we would have is backs because they run faster than the fat blokes – And then we all now what sort of game we would have. Cricket needs bowlers, batters and the occasional streaker to be a real spectacle…..

paul.bertelle said | February 16th 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment

It is a fallacy to think that Twenty20 cricket is a ’slogathon’. It is more like speed chess. The biggest mistake that batsmen make when coming to the crease is that they over complicate their game. Some batsmen have to many things running through their head. Also many batsmen make the mistake of trying to hit the cover of the ball and get themselves out. My tactics for winning in a Twenty20 is:

1) Win the toss and bowl first. It is much easier to pace yourself (team) when you know exactly what the necessary run-rates are. You can then break down the chase into 4 over periods.

2) Have 2 front line quick bowlers, 1 specialist spinner, and have batsmen who can bowl medium pace or part-time spin. It is very hard to bowl a side out in 20 overs. It is more important to slow the run-rate down. The more bowlers you have you can put it on the spot makes it easier to set fields to stop the runs. Also having medium pace and slow bowlers makes it harder to hit ‘maximums’ because the batsmen must make the pace of the ball. It is to easy for very quick bowlers to get edges that go to the boundary or hit off line with wides etc.

3) Have sweepers to stop the boundaries.

4) Have a balanced side with a few big-hitter (specialist) and batsmen who are quick between the wickets with a solid technique. It is a must in this form of the game to score singles of every ball. Partnerships & steady run-rates are the key to building a good platform to blast off in the last 5 overs.

5) It is important to stay still at the crease. The people who play the best shots are those who stay still. Moving all around the crease before the ball is bowled (backing away to leg, or moving to the off-side) is not recommended. Changing your position in the crease, or walking down the wicket is the best option when putting bowlers off their lines.

Jimmy said | August 28th 2009 @ 6:29am | Report comment

Interesting article and good comments – cheers.

I would add that in Twenty20 partnerships are critical for the batting side. With only 20 overs it becomes extremely difficult to win if you lose too many wickets, and consequently you have too many new batsmen come to the crease. The onus needs to be on the players who are already there in the middle – once they hit form – to stay there.

I agree with poster above who says batsmen can have too much running through their mind. They just need to work towards that overal target of 160-180. Sometimes they bat as if the target is infinity!

Republican said | September 23rd 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment

Good analogy Spiros.

T20 is bawdy enertainment compared to the real Mc Coy, yet it also poses the biggest single threat to the game of Cricket ever encountered with it’s growing influential lure of the almighty $.

The newer generations have not the patience, appreciation of history or subtley to ensure Test Crickets future, which is destined to become little more than that games quirky equivalent of Royal Tennis.